With the Apple v. Samsung patent trial underway, Apple is making its case that Samsung's phones and tablets are ripoffs of the iPhone and iPad. We’ve had extensive coverage of the testimony from our reporter in the courthouse, and we got our hands on some of the trial exhibits Apple is showing the jury.

As the plaintiff, Apple has steered the direction of the early parts of the trial. We’ll get to hear more from Samsung next week when it makes its defense. In the meantime, let’s look at some of the exhibits Apple has either shown the jury or submitted into the case's official record. These include side-by-side comparisons of Samsung and Apple devices, internal planning documents in which Samsung discusses features that are a bit too similar to the iPhone, and an Apple analysis of user interface features that allegedly violate Apple patents.

Samsung phones, before and after the iPhone

The above graphic requires little explanation. Apple is showing the jury that once the iPhone hit the market, Samsung’s designs started looking progressively more iPhone-like. After the January 2007 announcement of the iPhone, Samsung started pushing out its own touchscreen phones lacking a keyboard, as you can see in the next part of the trial exhibit:

None of the phones Apple shows from 2008 or 2009 could really be mistaken for an iPhone, but the Samsung models start resembling the iPhone a lot more in 2010 and 2011. The evidence Apple presents is in the picture at the top of this article.

Most people familiar with smartphones will see that those Samsung devices aren’t iPhones, since they include the familiar Android buttons at the bottom rather than a single home button. While Apple is showing Samsung products that hit the market after the iPhone launched, Samsung has evidence demonstrating that it was working on similar designs before the iPhone existed. Some of this evidence was ruled inadmissible because it was submitted too late in the legal process. But not all of Samsung's evidence was ruled out, as this exhibit in the case's official record shows:

Samsung tablets, before and after the iPad

Apple has argued that the Galaxy Tab's shape and look is too similar to the iPad to be a simple coincidence. Notably, the exhibit also includes Samsung's 7-inch Galaxy Tab, which is much too small to be confused with an iPad. The iPad has always been of the larger variety, but Apple is rumored to be building its own 7-inch tablet, and the Apple v. Samsung trial has made public more evidence that a 7-inch iPad is indeed in the works.

Samsung app icons "awkward," look like iPhone copies

The mere fact that Samsung phones and tablets are roughly the same size and shape as the iPhone or iPad likely isn't enough to win a big judgment for Apple. But Cupertino has other evidence, including a lengthy internal Samsung evaluation from March 2010 comparing the S1 to the iPhone. The document recommends changes in the user interface to reduce the impression that icon design was copied from iOS.

The Samsung planning document shows a comparison between the iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy S (or GT-I9000). It compares the Samsung device unfavorably to the iPhone, saying the iPhone's application icons are designed to "represent their functionalities" while Samsung's are "awkward" and cause confusion regarding each application's utility. The slide recommends changes to make the Samsung design more appealing, but doesn't specifically instruct Samsung to copy iPhone design techniques.

As you can see, the internal Samsung document presented at trial by Apple says the Samsung phone provides a "strong impression that iPhone's icon concept was copied." The "directions for improvement" are that Samsung designers should "Remove a feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design."

Samsung phones v. Apple patents

In addition to those internal Samsung documents, Apple has presented its own analysis of how Samsung's user interfaces mimic the iPhone and allegedly infringe Apple patents. For example, this is one of a series of exhibits comparing Samsung devices to Apple's "trade dress" and designs covered in an Apple design patent:

The Apple graphics go on to show a dozen or so Samsung phones, all with nearly identical user interfaces. To demonstrate that there is more than one way to design a touchscreen interface, Apple presented some of the competitors' home screens. These screens are different enough to not violate Apple's IP, in the company's view:

Apple's analysis of how Samsung tablets violate its patent describes at least one feature that anyone who uses a smartphone or tablet probably takes for granted: adjustment of scrolling speed in response to the speed of a user's finger movement. Doing it any other way would seem ridiculous, but Apple says Samsung has violated its patent by scrolling documents at a speed that is "essentially the same as the speed with which the user's finger moves." This graphic actually refers to the same patent covering the list feature, but focuses on a different claim:

The patent, covering 'List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touchscreen display," was filed for in December 2007 and awarded to Apple in December 2008.

We'll have to assume Samsung will argue this is obvious functionality that should never have been patented in the first place. Samsung strategy officer Justin Denison has already called the notion that Samsung copied Apple designs "offensive"—although Apple lawyers forced him to explain an e-mail he sent to Samsung employees criticizing them for not making user interfaces as attractive as Apple's.

There's a break in the trial today and tomorrow, and testimony will resume Friday. Get your popcorn ready.

600 Reader Comments

This from the company whose inception was from the piracy from Xerox Parc in Palo Alto, what kind of amnesia is this on Apple's part.

People keep bringing this up as if it was a secret Apple is trying to hide. It isn't. Steve Jobs has been very frank about it. Again "degree" is what is important here. Apple got a glimpse of the XEROX parc GUI. An hour or so. No tech specs or implementation details. This is very different from say Microsoft which got access to the implementation of Mac OS and got almost a year to study how it worked before making their own. When MS copied the Mac GUI it was a well functioning commercial product that worked.

In contrast the XEROX parc GUI was a half baked idea, which Apple greatly expanded on making it usable. Some of those things are:

- A mouse that could move in any direction and on any surface. Not just parallell with X, Y axis. - XEROX never managed to solve the problem with overlapping windows. Apple did. - Apple introduced icons that could be moved around. - Drop down menus. - Trashcanetc

Oh and another important difference. Apple as a company believed in this and made a commercial product out of it. XEROX did not believe in it and was not ready to make anything out of it. People that worked at it got frustrated by XEROXs failure to take this thing serious and left for Apple.

Xerox was allowed to purchase $1 million in pre-IPO Apple stock in exchange for their half-baked ideas.

While it is unquestionable that Apple refined Xerox's ideas, Xerox had the fundamentals of a graphic user interface. Indeed, when I first read about Xerox's interface in Byte magazine, I thought immediately, "This is the future of computing," and if I'd had money to invest, I'd have sunk it all into Xerox (In retrospect, I found it a good lesson in how it is possible to be very right and very wrong at the same time).

Unfortunately, while Xerox PARC understood the future of computing for the public, Xerox management lacked that vision. Instead, they offered their GUI as a feature of their new, expensive Star minicomputer system. This was exactly the wrong target market. Back then, high-end workstations were used by computer professionals. Ease of use was not high on their list of priorities--they used computers every day, and they knew their command-line interfaces backwards and forwards. They were not impressed by a computer that was bogged down with a fancy graphical interface.

Jobs and Gates on the other hand, recognized the value of what PARC had developed. I imagine that the guys at PARC were delighted to share their ideas with a couple of guys who shared their vision of personal computing and actually understood what they were trying to achieve.

You aren't talking about the same thing. Some of the posters in this thread appear to hold that an "invention" can only be a radical advance, a so-called "flash of genius". But that's neither the dictionary definition, nor the legal definition of the term.

For the purposes of U.S. patent law, an invention is "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof".

There are vanishingly few inventions that are conjured up from thin air. As others have pointed out in this thread, it is nearly impossible to find a monumental advance in technology and industry in the last century that does not build upon the previous efforts of others. Many of them appear obvious in hindsight, but that's not how patents are judged.

So yes, at least when it comes to patents, the MagSafe adapter is an invention, because it is a new and useful improvement upon an existing manufacture.

What is magsafe besides an apple brand name of an existing cable? Does the cable itself bring anything new to the table? They can patent the name and the shape they decided to make it i guess but they shouldn't be able to patent much else.

One thing about going all thermonuclear, it will result in mutual assured destruction. My ipad has been sold. lasyt apple product we owned. When my phone contract is up, bye bye samsung. Time for something fresh.

claiming to improve and make a half baked design commercially viable doesn't justify that you allowed to say that you are the original inventor of the design. it only qualifies you to have a sharp eye to catch other's invention during their process of working on it and then capitalizing on it. in fact if you are not a corporation like Oracle or Apple you would appreciate that some other corporation made it more useful and improved it in a way that entire humanity is enjoying it in a better way ( Rather than later on claiming the original creation of it). I really appreciate Sun's comment on Google's effort to improve android using some java technology prior their purchase by Oracle. (android was also purchased and improved by Google) of course Oracle got their fair share of response at court for their BS and so will Apple. if Samsung was asked to join forces with Apple, hp,Nokia and other mobile OS owners they wouldn't hesitate a second and join. but Apple wouldn't.

their ridiculously closed protectionist self serving corporate philosophy will eventually dissolve due to humanity's inherent craving for freedom not obscurity. and we always vote with our wallets. Words are precursors for actions to come bir the other way around. Samsung infact improved everything that are boring in ios Apple should in fact get their fact together and thank Samsung for their effort. How ridiculous is that you can't have widgets. Apple IOS: left and right that's it. Mm I forgot you can also pull from top to down ( I wonder where that came from)

What is magsafe besides an apple brand name of an existing cable? Does the cable itself bring anything new to the table? They can patent the name and the shape they decided to make it i guess but they shouldn't be able to patent much else.

Well, one patent that appears to cover MagSafe claims the following:

Quote:

1. An apparatus for electrically connecting an electronic device to an electrical relation, comprising:

a first connector having a first magnetic element and having at least one first contact electrically connected to the electronic device; and

a second connector positionable adjacent the first connector, the second connector having a second magnetic element and having at least one second contact electrically connected to the electrical relation,

wherein the at least one first contact comprises a metallic contact extending from a first face of the first connector and biased relative to the first face,

wherein magnetic attraction between the first and second magnetic elements substantially maintains the first and second contacts in an electrically conductive relationship,

wherein the first and second connectors each comprise two axes of symmetry such that the first and second connectors couple together in only two orientations relative to one another, and

wherein the at least one first and second contacts of the first and second connectors each comprise a pair of first path contacts on the connector for establishing a first path of electrical communication between the device and the relation,

wherein the pairs of first path contacts form an electrically conductive relationship with one another regardless of which of the two orientations the connectors are magnetically coupled.

I think I'm less convinced by Apples case after today. Not so much because of what they claim is infringing, But of the phones they claim aren't infringing. Since Apple brought in an icon expert to nit pick Samsungs icons, how do the following icons not infringe?

You missed Apple's point of contention. You are simply comparing individual icons as the basis for infringement, but based on the pictures, Apple is claiming infringement based on a combination of factors:

They are not claiming ownership of any of these ideas individually. They are claiming that the combination of these ideas is uniquely theirs and that Samsung copied it. In their examples, none of the other manufacturers used all of these concepts like Samsung did, that's why Apple deems them non infringing. Specifically, none of the others have a bottom row or rounded rectangles (although the N9 comes close). Apple deemed that Samsungs similarities on all five points was infringing, but the others similarities on three points were not. It's easy to nitpic individual points, but that's actually not the case they are making.

Apple brought in an expert that they paid $80,000 to. She was an icon expert there to nit pick icon design. When Samsung asked her to comment on the "feel" of a phone, she wouldn't. So they did make a case out of individual icons.

That's not the point of this slide though. Care to discuss the point I brought up?

I know what they are saying today. And I have already said in other threads that Samsung's choices leave little doubt that copying went on. I'm not blindly defending them. But if you combine yesterday's testimony with today's, you get the discrepancy I brought up. Yesterday they focused on two individual icons. Today they show other phones with very similar icons that they are fine with. If it's not about the icons specifically in some way, what was Kare's testimony for?

Plus, if they are going to say that all 5 of these put together are a trade dress violation but any one by itself isn't, I think that makes the case that much harder. Because it becomes much more subjective. Sure if you put the phones side by side and asked if you can spot the similarities, anyone could. But anyone could also spot the differences. So you are saying that the similarities as a whole are infringing but individually, not necessarily.

I'm not saying you're wrong but it sure makes for a less than bullet proof case.

Ars - PLEASE do your readership a favor and post an article that summarizes the actual legal standards for infringement of patents, copyrights and trademarks. If you've already done it, please do it again. It is sorely needed.

George Lucas sued Glen Larson productions because Battlestar Galactica was a ripoff of Star Wars. Then as now, dozens of people came out of the woodwork, insisting this was unfair because of the many differences between the two stories etc.

But, quite clearly, Battlestar Galactica WAS a ripoff of Star Wars. If there hadn't been Star Wars, nobody would have ever tried to make a show like Galactica. Remember, at the time nobody wanted to make anything like Star Wars; 20th Century Fox nearly pulled the plug many times, and it was only because of one executive (Alan Ladd Jr.) on Fox's board that the movie wasn't shut down. Only afterwards did it become clear what a good idea it was.

Remember Steve Ballmer's derisive laughter at the original iPhone? "It isn't a good business machine because it doesn't have a keyboard, which means it isn't suitable for email." Then, the iPhone was a hit, and everybody started ripping it off, including Samsung.

There are always going to be "differences," and good ideas are always going to seem "obvious" in retrospect (even if nobody thought of them beforehand or had any respect for them at the time). Nevertheless, a ripoff is a ripoff.

To the people saying "zOMG u cant copyrite ruonded cornars!!!": Apple's design is not defined by rounded corners, grids of colourful icons, frames on those icons, or an icon dock.

It products are defined by the combination of all these things in concert, along with hardware that has specific angles of rounding on specific edges/corners, with a black glass bezel, and silvery aluminium antenna(iPhone) / backplate(iPad) that can barely be seen from the front... the combination of which seems to make a good phone, as decided by the market... which was copied in it's entirety by Samsung... and none of which is essential to create a modern, functional, stylish smartphone (as shown below):

The combination of traits is what defines the product and gives it value, and if it was such an obvious and done-before design, you would expect some precursor to see at least a fraction of the success of the iPhone.

Similarly, any videogame that utilizes some of the following: extreme gore, guns, a cover system, beefcake protagonists, mole-people, chainsaws, sticky grenades, or desaturated colours... is not necessarily as rip-off of Gears of War. But it's a severe stretch of the imagination that a product with the exact same combination coming out shortly after, is trying to do anything but get a free ride off the success of the real deal, while letting it's competitor bear the burden of actually designing and marketing the product.

Whether the victim is a small indie developer, or the richest tech company in the world, it doesn't matter, they put in the design work, they should reap the benefits.

I'm not really in fan of patents and copyright, but if you're gonna have them, you should enforce them fairly, a term as short as 5 years from first official announcement is more than enough for someone make a fortune on their design, while letting others build on it in due course, but such a blatant aping of a product, released within year after it's "inspiration", is just a joke.

"We'll have to assume Samsung will argue this is obvious functionality that should never have been patented in the first place." But it was, and it should. Apple made it the right way.

The competition should be focusing in new and great ideas, not copying what the other did successfully

No, APPLE should be focused on new and great ideas, NOT what the other guy is doing to copy or not copy or look similar. Forget about the other guy and just build a better product, like they say theirs already is. If it is better, people either agree or disagree and choose accordingly. You dont see Gibson suing other guitar makers for Les Paul clones do you? Why? Because anyone who cares knows the difference. Because the Les Paul truly IS better than the rest. Thank God Gibson doesnt have the arrogance that Apple has, otherwise we'd here them crying about Washburn copying the double cutout, and they better not be using humbuckers, or a rosewood fretboard, and so god help me if I found out they are using circular knobs for volume and tone ...

Can you not see the BS that is Apple, the self proclaimed BEST phone maker in the world with the most money, crying that Samsung is copying them too much and "hurting" their business and profits? Come on people.

To the people saying "zOMG u cant copyrite ruonded cornars!!!": Apple's design is not defined by rounded corners, grids of colourful icons, frames on those icons, or an icon dock.

It products are defined by the combination of all these things in concert, along with hardware that has specific angles of rounding on specific edges/corners, with a black glass bezel, and silvery aluminium antenna(iPhone) / backplate(iPad) that can barely be seen from the front... the combination of which seems to make a good phone, as decided by the market... which was copied in it's entirety by Samsung... and none of which is essential to create a modern, functional, stylish smartphone (as shown below):

The combination of traits is what defines the product and gives it value, and if it was such an obvious and done-before design, you would expect some precursor to see at least a fraction of the success of the iPhone.

Similarly, any videogame that utilizes some of the following: extreme gore, guns, a cover system, beefcake protagonists, mole-people, chainsaws, sticky grenades, or desaturated colours... is not necessarily as rip-off of Gears of War. But it's a severe stretch of the imagination that a product with the exact same combination coming out shortly after, is trying to do anything but get a free ride off the success of the real deal, while letting it's competitor bear the burden of actually designing and marketing the product.

Whether the victim is a small indie developer, or the richest tech company in the world, it doesn't matter, they put in the design work, they should reap the benefits.

I'm not really in fan of patents and copyright, but if you're gonna have them, you should enforce them fairly, a term as short as 5 years from first official announcement is more than enough for someone make a fortune on their design, while letting others build on it in due course, but such a blatant aping of a product, released within year after it's "inspiration", is just a joke.

I was playing with that very phone yesterday at the At&t store. In the browser it uses a spring back feature and double tap to zoom. My guess is that's why they didn't list it with the other "non-infringing" phones. Maybe they licensed that. I honestly don't know. But to say that phone does nothing that is being sued for here is wrong.

I was playing with that very phone yesterday at the At&t store. In the browser it uses a spring back feature and double tap to zoom. My guess is that's why they didn't list it with the other "non-infringing" phones. Maybe they licensed that. I honestly don't know. But to say that phone does nothing that is being sued for here is wrong.

That's precisely what he is talking about, Samsung is not being sued for any one individual thing, it's being sued for blatant multiple things on single phones or across a single product line.

Speaking as someone that has many patents under his belt....The fact that one is a deep-fryer and the other is a laptop, is irrelevant... Here's why:

When I write a patent filing, (under advice of our patent attorney), I explicitly state that what I am describing are merely *examples* of an *embodiment* of my claims, but that my claims are not limited to these specific embodiments.

So if you look at the Apple Patent filing, and it says the claim pertains to an "electronic device", I could come back, and say that my deep-fryer is also an "electronic device", and have your patent ruled as invalid, because mine predates yours. I could also illustrate that my claims are the same as your claims, and show that my "deep-fryer" was just a single embodiment and that your laptop is another embodiment also covered by my claims.

Similar to many patents these days talking about smartphones, and saying they are exempt from patents relating to PCs... One could come back and say the definition of a smartphone is in fact an ultra-small form-factor PC that is able to make calls. The first smartphone OS from Microsoft was even called PocketPC.

No, APPLE should be focused on new and great ideas, NOT what the other guy is doing to copy or not copy or look similar. Forget about the other guy and just build a better product, like they say theirs already is. If it is better, people either agree or disagree and choose accordingly. You dont see Gibson suing other guitar makers for Les Paul clones do you? Why? Because anyone who cares knows the difference. Because the Les Paul truly IS better than the rest. Thank God Gibson doesnt have the arrogance that Apple has, otherwise we'd here them crying about Washburn copying the double cutout, and they better not be using humbuckers, or a rosewood fretboard, and so god help me if I found out they are using circular knobs for volume and tone ...

Can you not see the BS that is Apple, the self proclaimed BEST phone maker in the world with the most money, crying that Samsung is copying them too much and "hurting" their business and profits? Come on people.

You can't claim that device B is inspired by device A based on vague similarities that are equally applicable to thousands of products that predate both of them.

He's not claiming that the Sony Walkman is inspired by the iPod based on vague similarities that are equally applicable to thousands of products that predate both of them; he's basing it on the fact that Sony said in an interview that their new Walkman was inspired by the design of iPod!

Speaking as someone that has many patents under his belt....The fact that one is a deep-fryer and the other is a laptop, is irrelevant... Here's why:

When I write a patent filing, (under advice of our patent attorney), I explicitly state that what I am describing are merely *examples* of an *embodiment* of my claims, but that my claims are not limited to these specific embodiments.

So if you look at the Apple Patent filing, and it says the claim pertains to an "electronic device", I could come back, and say that my deep-fryer is also an "electronic device", and have your patent ruled as invalid, because mine predates yours. I could also illustrate that my claims are the same as your claims, and show that my "deep-fryer" was just a single embodiment and that your laptop is another embodiment also covered by my claims.

Similar to many patents these days talking about smartphones, and saying they are exempt from patents relating to PCs... One could come back and say the definition of a smartphone is in fact an ultra-small form-factor PC that is able to make calls. The first smartphone OS from Microsoft was even called PocketPC.

Someone put this man in front of a Senate hearing on patent reform, please. /clap

I was playing with that very phone yesterday at the At&t store. In the browser it uses a spring back feature and double tap to zoom. My guess is that's why they didn't list it with the other "non-infringing" phones. Maybe they licensed that. I honestly don't know. But to say that phone does nothing that is being sued for here is wrong.

That's precisely what he is talking about, Samsung is not being sued for any one individual thing, it's being sued for blatant multiple things on single phones or across a single product line.

Well, that's why this is subjective. How many is too many? 3? 5? 7? This suit names 7. If they cut it down to 4 is that ok? I understand that people are mentioning the look and feel of the whole phone but unless they're just going to say "look at it, it's the same." they are going to have to talk about each point individually. And individually, they are much harder to defend.

As I understand it, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in these kinds of cases so all Samsung really has to do is create doubt. Samsung can't easily defend the whole phone so their strategy will have to break down each point. And in the end, they can make the argument that if each point is not infringing on it's own, that the whole thing together can't be. If the law was crystal clear on this case, we wouldn't need a jury or a trial. There is a lot of subjectivity here and I think the jury is going to have a tough decision.

Two cases of companies attempting to protect their assets from thieves.

There are significant differences between these cases. You know the car industry/tv industry/etc. These are general concepts (you know, a bit like a phone is a generic concept, as is a User Interface). Imagine if there could only be one car because someone patented that concept, or the TV...

Zynga copied colors, mannerisms, screen layouts, descriptions (eg. careers, personality types, etc). There was no product that I know of that came close to the Sims ("little computer people" was the closest I can think of) - and then Zynga suddenly establishes an equivalent product ... that's what I call "beyond coincidence". I'm happy to be corrected - but I know of no game that was even remotely like the Sims.

Apple, on the other hand, take other people's ideas and refine them, very well might I add. There is not much that Apple invents for itself (XPARC, need I say more). But when they copy, they do a damn good job. Apple took their iPod and turned it into a phone. They blurred the line between the phone and the desktop/notebook very well. Samsung rode on the crest of Apple's wave (as EVERY SINGLE business rides on the crest of someone else's wave) ... on two paradigms that were well established - phones and desktops/laptops. This has created a blurred line as to what was considered an accepted standard v/s what is copying...

Hence, these two cases are quite different.

I shudder to think of living in a world where patenting of generic concepts is acceptable because of the harm this does to society. Imagine if the internet had been killed by patents such as British Telecom patents on hyperlinks ... this would have all but killed the Internet, had it been enforced.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Group#W ... ink_patent

Neither phone is defined by "the look" , how the icons look, or how the icons are arranged. the are defined by the apps that run on them and how well they run them. As soon as someone starts using the phone and not just looking at it the difference becomes obvious. then again the apple users have said this is all about "the look" and not what the phones do. Apple users (it has been admitted to here) are buying on looks and get easily confused by anything that remotely looks like an apple product.

That's actually a great picture (and the cultofmac address is just oh-too-perfect) because it illustrates a vital point.

With a fairly small amount of effort, it would be easy to make any Android device resemble an iOS screen. The right wallpaper, a few moments arranging icons, and you have apparently made an infringing device. Oops.

But short of matching it to an Android phone that has been manipulated in that way, or putting a more flexible OS on it, it is impossible to make an iOS device look like anything else. Widgets, the pull-down notification drawer (that Apple smartly stole; it's far superior to what they were doing), and a variety of other things make the whole experience between them impossible to confuse.

But Samsung was pretty dumb to put that picture on their boxes. It's difficult to imagine why else they would pick that image over all the other screen configurations they could have shown.

I'm expecting Samsung to get bitten for their packaging, and not much else.

Apple should think about what negative publicity suing everyone will get them, and what the long run has in store for them. There was a point when I considered buying an Macbook Pro and an iPhone. The main reason I did not buy from them was all the patent lawsuits. Later on I got experience with their products and was glad I did not buy one. They look nice I will give it that. Unfortunately I have some of their products now, but not because I sought it out. I am in the repair business. People bring in broken stuff all the time and sell it to me cheap, I refurbish and sell or part out. That's Long story there so I will leave it at that.

Apple should think about what negative publicity suing everyone will get them, and what the long run has in store for them. There was a point when I considered buying an Macbook Pro and an iPhone. The main reason I did not buy from them was all the patent lawsuits. Later on I got experience with their products and was glad I did not buy one. They look nice I will give it that. Unfortunately I have some of their products now, but not because I sought it out. I am in the repair business. People bring in broken stuff all the time and sell it to me cheap, I refurbish and sell or part out. That's Long story there so I will leave it at that.

Wow, are you for hire? Your investigation skills are next to none! Why aren't you in that court room, slogging it out for Samsung?! You really think Apple haven't seen these types of images?

In reply to your statement that Apple will get "bad publicity" from this saga; I don't know who you are kidding. The only bad publicity it will be is for hardcore non-Apple fans. I, myself, am not an Apple fan. I really dislike the Apple iPhone. If Apple loses this case, people around the world will cry injustice. If they win, it will settle a lot of arguments.

Let me make myself clear, I am very much pro-Samsung. But some of their designs here are just blatant copies of Apple products, and they deserve to be litigated (phone wise). Tablets, on the other hand, that's a harder sell for me

I was playing with that very phone yesterday at the At&t store. In the browser it uses a spring back feature and double tap to zoom. My guess is that's why they didn't list it with the other "non-infringing" phones. Maybe they licensed that. I honestly don't know. But to say that phone does nothing that is being sued for here is wrong.

Microsoft patented ripping of Apple. That's really only half a joke. Microsoft and Apple have a cross-licencing agreement as part of their settlement in the 90's

"We'll have to assume Samsung will argue this is obvious functionality that should never have been patented in the first place." But it was, and it should. Apple made it the right way.

The competition should be focusing in new and great ideas, not copying what the other did successfully

No, APPLE should be focused on new and great ideas, NOT what the other guy is doing to copy or not copy or look similar. Forget about the other guy and just build a better product, like they say theirs already is. If it is better, people either agree or disagree and choose accordingly. You dont see Gibson suing other guitar makers for Les Paul clones do you? Why? Because anyone who cares knows the difference. Because the Les Paul truly IS better than the rest. Thank God Gibson doesnt have the arrogance that Apple has, otherwise we'd here them crying about Washburn copying the double cutout, and they better not be using humbuckers, or a rosewood fretboard, and so god help me if I found out they are using circular knobs for volume and tone ...

Can you not see the BS that is Apple, the self proclaimed BEST phone maker in the world with the most money, crying that Samsung is copying them too much and "hurting" their business and profits? Come on people.

Yea right, you just not only acknowledge that Samesung is ripping off Apple, you also think that Apple should do another design because it was already ripped off by Samesung. So nice

"We'll have to assume Samsung will argue this is obvious functionality that should never have been patented in the first place." But it was, and it should. Apple made it the right way.

The competition should be focusing in new and great ideas, not copying what the other did successfully

No, APPLE should be focused on new and great ideas, NOT what the other guy is doing to copy or not copy or look similar. Forget about the other guy and just build a better product, like they say theirs already is. If it is better, people either agree or disagree and choose accordingly. You dont see Gibson suing other guitar makers for Les Paul clones do you? Why? Because anyone who cares knows the difference. Because the Les Paul truly IS better than the rest. Thank God Gibson doesnt have the arrogance that Apple has, otherwise we'd here them crying about Washburn copying the double cutout, and they better not be using humbuckers, or a rosewood fretboard, and so god help me if I found out they are using circular knobs for volume and tone ...

Can you not see the BS that is Apple, the self proclaimed BEST phone maker in the world with the most money, crying that Samsung is copying them too much and "hurting" their business and profits? Come on people.

Yea right, you just not only acknowledge that Samesung is ripping off Apple, you also think that Apple should do another design because it was already ripped off by Samesung. So nice

He never said Apple needs to make a new design just because it was ripped off. He said said that they should just be concerned with improving their design and not worry as much what everyone else is doing.

George Lucas sued Glen Larson productions because Battlestar Galactica was a ripoff of Star Wars. Then as now, dozens of people came out of the woodwork, insisting this was unfair because of the many differences between the two stories etc.

But, quite clearly, Battlestar Galactica WAS a ripoff of Star Wars. If there hadn't been Star Wars, nobody would have ever tried to make a show like Galactica.

That logic doesn't prove your argument.

That fact that one needed the other to occur first doesn't mean that one copied the other.

Good lord, imagine if the Galaxy had been made in China. Everyone would have called it a KIRF.

As for why the Captivate didn't draw the ire of Apple in court... physically, it doesn't look like an iPhone like the T-Mobile version of the Galaxy did, probably because AT&T didn't want it to look like an iPhone to avoid confusing its customers.

Wow, are you for hire? Your investigation skills are next to none! Why aren't you in that court room, slogging it out for Samsung?! You really think Apple haven't seen these types of images?

Of course they have. This is one of the images Samsung tried to have included as evidence, but was too late, and which Apple requested they be punished for, for releasing to the public.

Quote:

In reply to your statement that Apple will get "bad publicity" from this saga; I don't know who you are kidding. The only bad publicity it will be is for hardcore non-Apple fans. I, myself, am not an Apple fan. I really dislike the Apple iPhone. If Apple loses this case, people around the world will cry injustice. If they win, it will settle a lot of arguments.

Let me make myself clear, I am very much pro-Samsung. But some of their designs here are just blatant copies of Apple products, and they deserve to be litigated (phone wise). Tablets, on the other hand, that's a harder sell for me

Every Apple/Samsung article you write that you're not an Apple fan, that you're "pro-Samsung", and then you write either an anti-Samsung or pro-Apple comment.Nothing wrong with you writing any comment you like, but don't delude yourself (or us) about which way your feelings really lie.

Apple was showing a before and after of the Phone icon for instance. Samsung used a terrible icon showing 1-4. They then changed it to be a green phone. Apple argued that this was in response to the iPhone. Samsung argued that it was because the first icon sucked (which it did).

The green phone has been the defacto phone icon on practically ALL cell phones over the last 20 years. Now, it's just a virtual icon instead of a button. And the Samsung one even looks different! Sure it is green, and sure it is a phone, but what else should it be? Two tin cans with a string in the middle?

So make it a green icon, but maybe make the receiver facing outward so you see the ear and mouthpieces directly. Did it have to be at the exact same angle and everything as the iPhone icon? Did they HAVE to have a picture of flowers to symbolize the Photos icon? I don't believe anyone else was using a similar icon before the iPhone was released. This list continues.

Why should they make it different ? Why?The same phone icon, the same angle is followed to denote a phone sign the world over, in phone booths, in directories, etc , etc. Even the oldest mobile phones used the same green phone icon.

So just because Apple used it, no one else can use it in any product or else I will get labelled a thief ??BS!!

The gallery icon is a lot different, I never noticed it was a magnified flower until now.

Did Samsung copy some of the icons ? YesShould Apple get free reign to sue everyone to oblivion ? No

Apple should think about what negative publicity suing everyone will get them, and what the long run has in store for them. There was a point when I considered buying an Macbook Pro and an iPhone. The main reason I did not buy from them was all the patent lawsuits. Later on I got experience with their products and was glad I did not buy one. They look nice I will give it that. Unfortunately I have some of their products now, but not because I sought it out. I am in the repair business. People bring in broken stuff all the time and sell it to me cheap, I refurbish and sell or part out. That's Long story there so I will leave it at that.

I think it's interesting that all but one of the non-touchscreen phones have a display active and none of the touchscreens have theirs active, and that the devices in question (like the Ace and the original Galaxy) are not shown. Also, this is an interesting angle for the Galaxy Ace (spoiler used to reduce size):

Every Apple/Samsung article you write that you're not an Apple fan, that you're "pro-Samsung", and then you write either an anti-Samsung or pro-Apple comment.Nothing wrong with you writing any comment you like, but don't delude yourself (or us) about which way your feelings really lie.

I'm not sure what you are eluding to, here. Which one am I? Surely you know any pro-Apple fan is going to be shoving that down anyones throat. I don't have an iPhone, never have, probably never will. I have a Samsung Galaxy S3 and I am loving it. I very much enjoyed the Samsung GS2, as well.

Maybe I don't present my opinion as unbiased, that's my mistake. My pure gripe with Samsung is the Galaxy Ace, which has pretty much the exact same design as an iPhone. You have got to be kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Sure, you can say "You'd have to be stupid to mix the two up". But that isn't what the law says. Trade dress etc doesn't protect against ignorance.

And in regards to my comment about the image driftmachine presented, that was sarcasm. In every single thread about this case, that image and more is posted countless times.

Apple should think about what negative publicity suing everyone will get them, and what the long run has in store for them. There was a point when I considered buying an Macbook Pro and an iPhone. The main reason I did not buy from them was all the patent lawsuits. Later on I got experience with their products and was glad I did not buy one. They look nice I will give it that. Unfortunately I have some of their products now, but not because I sought it out. I am in the repair business. People bring in broken stuff all the time and sell it to me cheap, I refurbish and sell or part out. That's Long story there so I will leave it at that.

I think it's interesting that all but one of the non-touchscreen phones have a display active and none of the touchscreens have theirs active, and that the devices in question (like the Ace and the original Galaxy) are not shown. Also, this is an interesting angle for the Galaxy Ace (spoiler used to reduce size):

That is pretty blatant. Before this case, I had never heard of the Ace. I saw Walmart carries it. Looking in the comments about that phone I found this:

"I have this phone. I love this phone.HOWEVER, AT&T was reluctant to associate it with their network as it DOES NOT come up on their list of acceptable telephones. The AT&T rep and I figured it was because it was a new model.I later learned when I contacted Samsung USA support because of a malfunction: THIS PHONE WAS NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES. IT WAS MANUFACTURED FOR USE IN MEXICO, ONLY. (This explains why the default language is Spanish on start up.)"

That would explain why I had never heard of it. Not that this makes the copying any less. I'm wondering, if this phone was made in Asia and sold in Mexico, does it belong in U.S. court? I'm not trying to get them out of this one. I honestly don't know.

Or is it not actually part of this case and just used here as an example of Samsung's copying?